Re: [Idr] Configuration objects in BGP MIB v2: Call for consenus

In message <20080707015000.GB8722@slice>
Jeffrey Haas writes:
>  
> Working Group,
>  
> Back around 2005 I had a number of discussions with people who had
> provided input for the BGP MIBv2 work.  These conversations were
> specifically regarding the configuration objects in the MIB.
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-05 was the last version of the MIB that
> contained the proposed configuration objects.
>  
> The results of those discussions were effectively that the configuration
> mechanisms in that MIB were too complex and had some potential issues.
> In particular:
>  
> - Modern BGP implementations tend to be more complex than the feature
>   set covered by the proposed MIBs.  It was not possible to
>   configure all session specific features from the MIB.  Since the base
>   MIB is not intended to cover all possible current and future features
>   this is problematic.
> - Configuration of peering sessions are not sufficient to fully
>   implement BGP in an operational network.  BGP fundamentally requires
>   policy for the population of the Ribs.  Policy elements and algebra
>   vary considerably among vendors.  
>  
>   Providing a general policy engine for BGP in the MIB is likely out of
>   scope of this work.
>  
> Presume that the structural issues from draft-05 may be addressed.
> Should they be addressable, do we wish to pursue including configuration
> objects in the BGP MIB?
>  
> Given the operational impact of this issue, I would appreciate it if
> this call for consensus was distributed within and without IETF.  I will
> be forwarding this to NANOG as a first step.
>  
> -- Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

Jeff,

Configuration object in the BGP MIB are useless.  It is best to remove
them.

Curtis

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr